I don't know who these conservatives are that do not like Jefferson, I have never met any of them. I also do not know why they would be pissed about the term "separation between church and state" unless it is because it is being used to people rights they had until recently. Some of these rights were to prey in school, some schools were outright banning religious material altogether due to the separation between church and state.
But hey, that's not Jefferson's fault, it's the idiots who can't grasp a concept. An idiot like this was the guy who sued because his kid had to learn the pledge of allegiance in school citing "separation of church and state".
I looks to me like that comment about not liking Jefferson and why is something the author and not the person being interviewed had said. I agree that people are allowed to have opinions, but when those opinions make claims about others, especially in such a broad stroke like "conservatives", then it should at least be accurate. I don't think the comment is anything more then an individuals opinion.
As for who would be charge or not is really up to the localities and how the information is presented to them. If it was presented that the 24 year old (man or woman) took advantage of the 15-17 year old (man or woman), then the older of the two most likely would be facing charges of some sort. However, if it's like you said, then there is somewhat of problem with intent.
What I mean by intent is, you can run into someone who is in a place and doing activities that would allow you to believe that everyone there is of legal age. Lets say this party was hosted primarily for adults and someone brought their brother who was under age, After seeing him at the adult party consuming adult beverages, it's entirely reasonable to assume he is at least 18 or more likely 21 (age for drinking in most states in the US). So if the 24 year old slept with an under aged person because she failed to ID that person who was in a place where the participants should have been old enough to begin with, then they are not likely going to get in trouble. However, if the 24 year old knew the kid was only 15, then there is a problem no matter how drunk she got or what kind of advances he made. And no, it wouldn't really matter if the roles were reversed. There is also a problem if the 24 year old went to a high school party and had a reasonable idea that most the attendees were under age.
You see, the premise of this discussion is that humans are able to control their sexual desires with self control. Being under the influence of alcohol does not reduce the expectation of that one bit at all. If it did, then a drunk who rapes a girl or drives their car into a family of 5 killing most of them would get off without charges.
That seems somewhat reasonable. However, the 19 and 15 year old would be within the 4 year grey area I was mentioning (which is at age 16 in my state). How would the law feel about someone who is 25 or 30 or 55 having sex with a 15 year old they hooked up with at a party (lets say a birthday party for your grandfather and the 30 or 50 year old attended as a guest and met the 15 year old who was a distant relative of your grandfather but a guest also)? Or does it even denote an distinction between older age within a relevant group of people and grossly exaggerated age differences?
I ask because I can see where someone would be exposed to a younger group. This can happen sometimes without fault of the older person. I know someone who was home schooled for the first six grades of their school life and for some reason was placed 3 grades behind where the state tested him when he went into public schools. He should have been placed into seventh or eighth grade but instead was put into 5th and had to remain in a class that was 3-4 years younger then him. And if he asked someone out that was from a lower grade who might have had access to the same classes in high school, there could have easily been a 4 to 5 year difference in age. But I think there is a real difference between kids in the same school just a grade or so apart and lets say junior or senior in college cruising the local high school for naive kids they can get to put out. I also see a big difference between the same and a 28 or 40 year old man cruising the high schools for inexperienced partners for whatever reason.
Whether society sees the differences is another question. I'm just curious if yours does.
And the key word here is want. We are now putting people away for what they might want to do, instead of what they actually have done.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is just as much an offense as committing the crime itself. Taking actions to commit a crime, say robbing a bank or gas station, even though you were apprehended before doing so is very much the same as the crime itself happening. This is nothing new and it has been in the news more then a few times where people were arrested, charged, and convicted for actions they wanted to do but failed in doing so. A common scenario of crimes is where someone attempts to find an assassin or thug to kill a spouse or rival or to physically harm them and the guy they hire turns out to be working with the cops. The person wanting to commit the crime is charged and convicted even though the crime never took place. In reality, if the intent to commit the crime is there and there is reasonable means to believe the capacity to commit the crime is there, then any action towards the crime is chargeable even if the crime didn't happen.
Something you might have seen on the news recently is the so called militia members in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan who plotted to kill some police and attack the government. They were arrested and charged (too soon for any convictions) based on their intent and ability to commit the crime even though it didn't happen.
And the key word there is re-offend. In order to re-offend, you must have offended in the first place. What bothers me as that thought crimes are now an offense.
You're sort of looking at it backwards. It's not a thought crime because his intention was to commit a crime. His thought mistake was not that it wasn't a crime or that he desired a 13 year old, or he imagined sexual acts with someone under age, it was that he thought a mature DC cop was a 13 year old girl and willfully set out to do something illegal based on that incorrect knowledge. But make no mistake, this wasn't about him just thinking of doing something, he masturbated to this person thinking that she was a 13 year old kid and invited her to have sex with him. The cop who he thought was a 13 year old girl provided an address and a time frame. The perp drove to the kids house then emailed her that he was there. They kept him waiting for some reason, maybe to see if he would commit a further crime, and arrested him as he drove off. This guy plead guilty to "travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) (2006)" In other words, he said he did act with intent (not just think) on his assumption that the person was 13 and it was illegal for him to have sex with her.
As with other crimes concerning crime that weren't actually committed (failed robberies or hit man schemes), the act of participating in the attempt of the crime is a crime just the same. This was no thought crime where he sat there and thought "she's hot, or I wonder what sex with her would be like, or imagined sex with her", he knowingly propositioned someone he believed to be under the age of consent for sex after showing himself doing a "solo sexual act" and then proceeded to act upon a response he interpreted as an acceptance. That turned out to be illegal and isn't a thought crime because he acted outside of the thought process in the commission of a crime.
The problem isn't a simple as your making it out to be. In real life, convicted sex offenders are restricted from most places that kids would be. This would include schools, daycare, public parks and sporting events featuring children teams, and so on. This is done to remove access to the children and allow society some safety to some degree (which is why sex offender lists are generally public) It's only a logical extension to restrict a person's access to the computer when the computer was the means of access to the children.
The problem here seems to be that the computer does way more then a school or a daycare or whatever so restricting total access is too much. It would be like not allowing a sex offender who still retains their voting rights to vote because their precinct is located within a school zone. It would be like not allowing this person to participate in government when some government agencies are only offering required forms or information through online sites and so on. So while it's logical to restrict this guys access to children by restricting his access to a computer, it's not logical to use that to restrict his access to employment or voting or government services or whatever else is connected to the use of a computer.
I'm betting that on re-sentencing, his computer use will still be restricted or monitored for a period of time but nothing like a total ban on access or use.
The ideal difference between a land line and a computer is that with a land line, the connection has to be formed somewhere else. In other words, you wouldn't call random numbers, ask if they were under 15, then try to talk them into meeting you for sex or describe yourself masturbating to them. If you did, it would be an avenue of approach to commit the crime or offense. In the same trend, people convicted of sex crimes are typically not allowed in or around schools, parks, daycare and other places that children would likely be because it's an avenue of approach. This is why the computer was singled out just like not going to a school or day care or public swimming pool is singled out with other convicted sex offenders too.
The problem that seems to be here now is that the computer is necessary for more then just surfing the internet in a lot of areas. Like the appeals court noted, it's necessary for finding work and in most cases actually performing the work. So closing that avenue of approach off entirely was deemed to stiff of a punishment for this person (who was employed in a field that needed the use of computers). It's not really something where a court is out of touch, it's more of a court taking an established principle to far.
Shooting someone for sleeping with someone else regardless of who or why is overkill. However, 17 or 15 or whatever is decided by the community you are in when it happens.
Most rational communities will encode this limit into law and as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Especially when the entire premise revolves around being able to control your sexual desires (which is why rape is illegal). Anyways, in most of these rational communities, the legal age of consent is set into law and usually take age of the offender into account too. Take my home state in the US for instance, The legal age of consent is 18 with the exception of people within 4 years of each others age, then it's 16 with people people between 13 and 15 being decided on a case by case situation to the degree of wrongfulness unless both participants are within that age group. Under 13 is a statutory rape regardless of any consent where the others could be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, rape, or something in between except within the range of consent.
The problem with kids and sex isn't some arbitrary number or age of consent selected by the community either. It's a number that is based around when the community has decided the child is capable of making a responsible decision in this regard. This isn't necessarily about harm to the child either. In almost all under age sex with older people situations outside the internet, the older person is in a position of authority over the child or they have negotiated some network of procedures or places of trust that the child is compelled to attend. A 30 or 45 year old janitor or bus driver who sleeps/has sex with 15 year old girls probably got that opportunity because they worked within a school that those 15 year old girls were supplied by state law. Same with a teacher or babysitter, parent/relative, or cop, who is in a unique position or power over a child to win their confidence. And lets face it, unless the person is already sexually confident or madly in lust with you, you pretty much have to win their confidence to get into their pants.
So the age of consent is more then just when society thinks the kids are able to make grown up decisions. The punishment reflects not only the tricking or taking advantage of children who might not be able to make the decision competently, but how the act was initiated and if anyone took advantage of situations created by laws in place or abuses of authority over the children.
Your previous post was modded as a troll which is why I brought it up. I couldn't tell you who did it. The comment wasn't about me believing it, but how silly it seems to mark you as one. I also understand that you have a difference of opinion then everyone else, I just seem to think that you weren't considering all of the possibilities.
As for manned missions, that's somewhat the goal of autonomous missions or has been with the US space agencies for a while. As far as Hydrogen being used as a fuel, the dangers of it that stop it from being used in a car is the danger to humans- not the machinery. The space shuttle used it right now and there are people pushing to turn the booster rockets into hydrogen fuel rockets so they can be reused. Anyways, as I stated before, the solar panels would create the hydrogen in transit while it was coasting to the destination so there wouldn't be too terribly much of it at one time. Something like that could allow an increase in speed as well as deceleration making a 6 month trip somewhat shorter. Also there is a benefit in space that isn't available on earth, we can simply position the containment devices on the side of the space craft opposite of the sun and use the lack of heat (no atmosphere so no ambient temperature) to aid in the cooling and stabilization of the hydrogen which would negate some of the instability problems preventing it's consumer use on earth.
I first learned about the Helium-3 in an article I was reading on the practical drawbacks causing cold fusion to be a pipe dream. I just equated the two together and never really thought about it much more outside of knowing that there is supposed to be loads of it on the moon.
My understanding of it which isn't to any great extent, is that there should be much more Helium-3 on the moon then there is accessible/usable plutonium on the earth and something with how the sun's rays pass over the moon would create a supply to replace any taken if enough time had passed so it's sort of renewable to boot. The connection to cold fusion is only because of my lack of knowledge with it. I do remember the lower radiation and all and that. Helium-3 isn't radioactive which makes it somewhat more desirable as a fuel if it was plentiful in supply.
I do not know why someone modded you a troll on your post. Well, unless someone thought Troll was synonymous with ignorant and tried to be ironic which is humorous to say the least.
Anyways, the water in your back yard is very expensive to get into space. In fact, it's so expensive that stopping on the moon to pick it on the way to mars or wherever up would ultimately be cheaper then taking it from earth. Imagine carrying a pale of water up a 300 meter incline to dump into a pool. Now imagine you have to fill this pool up which would require 2379 trips with a 5 gallon pale to fill a 24 foot pool. Now imagine doing the same with a 300 meter trip across level land. That's not quite the different in effort and energy that would be spent but should give you an idea.
As for mining, well, they say there is plenty of Helium-3 on the moon (or so they say) and just one cargo bay of the space shuttle full of it could supply all of the US's energy demands for at least one year. Of course that would require cold fusion to be more then a pipe dream but Helium-3 is currently rare on earth so a cleaner energy source could be one product other then water for future space exploration that could be mined.
But lets go back to the water for instance. Suppose a manned mission to mars was going to take 4 people to mars and back. Now they say you should drink 8 8-ounce glasses of water a day. Your food will provide about 20% of the total fluid intake so you need to add more water to remain healthy. But lets ignore that and the entire if your active you need more and so on and take a safe constant of 8-8ounce glasses of water per day. Now there is 128 ounces in a gallon and 8 8-ounce glasses is 64 ounces. Times that by the 4 people and you have 256 ounces or 2 gallons of water for each day. Of course this doesn't account for laundry or bathing or anything, just to drink. So it takes between 6-8 months to reach mars and the same to return. At a round 30 days to a month, that's 360-480 gallons of water one way or 720-960 gallons round trip. At 8.3 pounds to a gallon of water, you are looking at 5,976-7,968 pounds (3614kg) extra to lift off from earth. At $5 to $10K per pound to launch into space, we are looking at roughly 59 millon just to get the water up there.
Of course they wouldn't actually send that kind of water up as they could recycle most of it (if you don't mind drinking refined wastes). But solar panels could split the water into oxygen and hydrogen, compress them to a liquid state, and supply the fuel for the trip back or maybe even a detour. Getting to the water on the moon could be the key to doing what you would like with other planets/destinations.
I liked the XKCD reference. Today's is very fitting as I had to field a complaint over someone claiming all their programs and shortcuts were gone. Turns out they liked a co workers desktop wallpaper and instead of grabbing the image and setting it as theirs, they decided to log into the domain as the other user. But what can you do when the employees are relatives of the owner.
Anyways, I wasn't just talking about green house gases. I was speaking of the problems with heat from the middle of the earth in the form of volcanic activity, ocean currents that change bringing warmer or colder water to areas not typically accustomed to it and so on. There are a range of outside forces having an effect on the observations behind global warming that will not allow a simple Fourier equation to explain it all.
So how do you explain that when you remove the effect of my simplistic calculation from the observed record the warming trend dissapears? Science is about the best explaination, from what I can tell you don't have an explaination. Scientists have spent decades looking for alternative forcings and have come up empty handed.
Why would I want to explain something that isn't completely reflective to the current discussion? In case you missed the point I made in my post, there are too many outside factors involve for your simplistic calculation to be accurate within the entire increase of Co2-CH4-H2O and other GHGs to coincide accurately with he increases in temperature. No one is denying that there is a green house effect, they are denying that man has significantly altered it. This is why the climate models are way more complex then simply taking the amount of radiation in and multiplying it with the amount of increased Green house gasses. Removing your calculation does nothing to the question, it's only accurate in controlled environments without positive or negative feed backs.
Scientist have also spent centuries looking for what causes gravity and the best we have is a couple of theories that can't be proven. We know more about how to use gravity, more about how to us items within gravity, and more about taking advantage of gravity then we do about it's causes or creation. If global warming was really as simply as a dumbed down equation, then there would be no debate or skeptics right now.
Hint: El-nino is not a forcing it's large scale turbulance.Your rant about El-nino is similar to saying the convection currents are what is causing the water to warm when I put a pot on the stove but that's what you get when you take creationist style arguments to their logical conclusion.
My rant about El Nino was little more then an example of a complication to your calculation. What you cannot tell us is how much of an effect el nino has on your calculations or if the effect has increased or decreased significantly over the same time span. In other words, the science of global warming is much more complex then that.
RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1), or 3.71 W/M^2 for a doubling of CO2. T = (3/3.71)*5.35*ln(387.5/280) = 1.41 degC since pre industrial times. Almost half of which we have not seen yet due to the massive thermal inertia of the oceans. If we burry our heads in the sand it will only take another 40yrs to turn 387.5 into 480, I will leave the calculation of that temprature increase as an exercise for you.
So your admiting that your calculations are accurate with the observed changes in temperature? You blame it on the oceans being a huge heat sink and want to question my claim that it's much to complex to use a simple equation like Fourier. Hmm.. I've had AGW discussions with you in the past, but never have you agreed with my premise while attempting to deny it. Is this some strange new debating tactic you are practicing?
Sure without looking at the facts it's possible to say that the increase could be masked by -ve feedbacks but basic physics says the 1.4DegC MUST be accounted for. If you actually do look at the feedbacks and compare them to gelogic records you will find it's much more likey fedbacks will ADD to the warming rather than mask it. You can expect to observe this in the N Hemisphere over the next decade or so since the melting of the Artic sea ice is a large +ve feedback that is occurring well before the "alarmists" predicted it would. The only way I can see of avoiding it would be to hope China and India vastly increase (and sustain) their output of smog so that the -ve forcing of the smog will mask the increase from CO2.
Again, agreeing with me while disagreeing. Let me ask you a few questions, how do you know the -ve feed backs aren't sub-settling and creating positive feedback compared
There is a real scientific problem with your skeptics dismissal.
The properties of Co2 are not in question here and never were. The question is whether or not the change in the amounts of Co2 is large enough on scale to have the claimed effect outside of other observations because the raw physics equation doesn't side with observations. Co2 is a very small part of the atmosphere and the amount that is supposed to be a problem something like.0005 of the total atmosphere. And to add to that, there are plenty of other green house gases that display properties similar to Co2 in much larger quantities which are more effected by natural events then man made events. There are many outside factors that contribute to the problem like submarine volcanic activities, shifts in oceanic currents along with the decadal oscillation events responsible for El Mino and so on. That's why there is a complex climate model and not a climate math problem that any high school child could figure out.
I mean seriously, if it was as simply as Co2 has X heat retention value when exposed to Y amounts of heat then the entire proof would be X+1*y. And for every one in addition to X, simply measure the temp and see if it's accurate. Well, it's not that simple and to date, no attempts to make it that simple have been accurate.
What you are doing is essentially saying Wool is warm, I see ten sheep with wool, I am going to be warm and criticizing anyone who doubts you. Your league of followers may believe that you will eventually shear the sheep and make fabric from the wool that you will eventually make into some warm clothing and wear, but I don't have to believe you will, the guy you responded doesn't have top believe you will, actually, no one who can critically think should believe you will until we see you wearing the wool sweater and socks. SO if Co2 is actually the problem, more specifically, man made Co2, then show us the damn wool socks and sweater already. Don't sit there and cry because the properties of Co2 are such or that someone questions the claim. `All that does is show how little about the situation you actually do know. And when I say situation, I mean both global warming as well as the skeptics.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
This issue has been brought up in courts by SCO for many years. Novell is fully aware of what's going on. There is no way they could claim ignorance.
I'm sure that Novell is fully aware of the claims of Unix IP in Linux made by SCO and most likely know what those are too. However, the way they could claim ignorance is if I added Unix code tomorrow or if something wasn't noticed, disclosed or talked about before now or it simply wasn't in the packages they distributed. That's why I initially started with "Not necessarily true" instead of "you are wrong".
The point is that there has to be a knowing consent component in order for their distribution to be a granting of a license per the GPL. Otherwise, it would be them passing on the license they received.
This is especially true since the extent of any alleged infringement has never been extended past some numeric constants in "errno.h". There is no question that parties on all sides of this dispute have pored over that file at length.
And yes, I do know that SCO's claim of Unix IP in Linux was not only shoddy but lacking severely. I'm not questioning that at all. I'm just stating that something could still pop up and bite us because of Unix IP in Linux if it is ever there. Novell's participation in GPL'ed products doesn't automatically imply their consent so each and every time there is a claim, it needs to be looked at carefully.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Well, no. Not all programs on a SUSE disk ares GPLed and not all GPLed code is on SUSE disks.
Further more, there is absolutely nothing indicating that Novel has inspected any code in the kernel or any other part of the SUSE disk pretending to be GPLed but was actually Unix code improperly included. The fact that they distributed something is not enough to take their copyrights away. The GPL does not, let me repeat that, _the_GPL_does_not_steal or trick someone out of their copyrights.
Now, if Novel was fully away that the code was there and it was their by proxy of being Unix code and then consented to distributing it under the GPL, then yes, the GPL would propagate. But the point is that Novel would have to be aware that A: it was their code and not code belonging to the person who included it and licensed it under the GPL, and B: that their distribution was actually distributing their code under the GPL and not relaying code with the rights given to them.
In short, unless Novell knows the code it there and consents to it being under the GPL, then it's not under the GPL legally and their unknowing distribution of it doesn't place it there. The only way it can be placed under the GPL is if Novell adds it or consciously makes it so. The GPL does not trick anyone out of their property.
I was wondering about this too. A friend kept getting copyright notices from his ISP saying they were going to cancel his service. He thought maybe his computer was infected with something. Turned out he was running TOR and someone terminating at his connection was running a bit torrent client making it appear as if he was.
So I wonder, how many of these people were doing something similar thinking they were helping the oppressed with free speech or government agents protect the country only to be bitten by someone attempting to hide their "illegal" activities and if running TOR would be a valid excuse?
Re:Seven years for eight hours work
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Not necessarily true.
Simply conveying a GPLed product doesn't imply any rights in addition to what was already within the product were conveyed. So if whoever put the code in the product didn't have the legal ability to do so, then SCO or Novell distributing anything wouldn't entrap them into losing their copyright to it or granting others rights to that copyright.
Let me explain this a little differently. Suppose you spent the last 5 years developing a video game that you intended to sell at a reasonable price. Now suppose I packaged a GPLed OS and combined your video game directly into the code so it was an integral part of the OS's display. Now also suppose I placed a GPL notice on all your code as well as the OS package then asked you to host the files at your website. That act alone does not remove any of your rights to the copyright of your code nor does it give anyone else copyright rights to it. In short, the GPL wouldn't apply to items I didn't not have the right to apply it to regardless of you distributing it unknowingly or not.
Think about this, could I take a GPLed program or piece of code from it and place that into a BSD or MIT licensed work? Of course not. But suppose I did so and didn't tell anyone, then the original author decides to distribute it as a compilation of programs or something or part of it without knowing his code is in there, he has granted nothing knowingly so it still wouldn't be BSD or MIT licenses code. All he would have done is passed on the permissions he received- not added any without his knowledge.
This is because I have no right to assign your copyright and the GPL doesn't steal copyright. It only passed rights to copyright on to others assuming they pass those same rights given to them with it. So if I violated your copyright by placing it inside of something, if or when you distribute that, you are only distributing the copyright I gave you permission to redistribute, not automatically losing your rights to your copyrighted work.
I was with you all the way until the end. Unfortunately, the government has jurisdiction over what enters and leaves the country as a right of sovereignty including communications, mail and IP packets. One of the very first laws over this was passed back in the late 1700's when the founders were very much alive and still operating in the government they formed. The law allowed the searching vessels at borders and ports inland when the vessels came from outside of the country. This law was passed by the very first congress of the United States in which many of the founding fathers participated in.
This has been one of the basis and principles behind many of the court cases we have seen in the last century in which the courts backed the notion that the search and free speech clauses in the constitution didn't apply.
Now I'm not wanting to get into a discussion of if that is right or wrong, but it's the way it is viewed and has been viewed since the beginning of the country when George Washington sign the law allowing warrant-less searches of vessels at ports entering or leaving the country.
I agree with your federalism comment. However, I can understand why people are so confused with the issue when the FDR initiated programs that directly benefited the people instead of the state and the federal government has used those expanded powers (namely the interstate commerce clause) to grab jurisdiction on things like minimum wage and drug laws.
This isn't about public health care system versus private; every state is heavily involved in the medical industry in their states, and to my understanding both "sides" agree that there is no state that is doing a very good job of it. And strangely enough each "side" are using that as their respective core argument for and against a federal take over.
If I were a welfare baby hoping to win the dole, I would prefer each state be left to try whatever it likes and when some state finally comes up with a system that doesn't suck ass, that is where I will move to. Funny enough, if you are on the complete other side and don't think you will ever get sick, but just in case keep enough cash on hand in case you require the services of a doctor, then you can move to the state of your choice as well. And really, if it isn't that important, what is with all the debate anyway?
The biggest pushers of government health care isn't really the people who need access to health care. It's people pushing an ideology onto others for various reasons.
Think about this, if you're poor, you generally are covered by a government program already with the exception of some single people with no children. If your wealthy, then you already have coverage because you don't want an illness to challenge your wealth. So that leaves us with is approximately 46 million Americans out of 307 million (population estimate by the census bureau last year) who do not have health coverage. If this site is to be believed, 17 million of those uninsured make $50k or more a year and could afford insurance if they wanted it or spent their money a little more wisely. That leaves us with about 29 million people out of 307 million or roughly 10% of the population that doesn't have health care insurance or is covered be an existing government program. We can dwindle that number down a little more if we look at the claim that 25% of the 29 million uninsured qualify for an existing government program but aren't enrolled for whatever reason. This would drop the number down to 21 million or so (roughly 7% of the population) but that's sort of irrelevant because they are not covered as of now.
Now if we take this data and look at how many people support the government health care and who are apposed to it, less then half of the country support it and more then half appose it. But half of 307 million is about 125 million more people then those with no coverage. It isn't really welfare babies hoping to win the dole who are in support of this (of course there probably are some, but it's far more complex then this). What it is about is where people in general aren't satisfied with the insurance services they are getting right now and have been scared to death by claims that things will happen which might not be true in their case.
Life time caps on services or payouts is one of them. When people take out a policy, even if it's the employer provided policy, the life time cap is known in advance but it's a "major travesty" or "unjust act" when someone gets ill who is under-insured and reaches that cap. It gets presented as if the caps are arbitrary and made to apply at the whim of the insurance provider for the sole purpose of not holding up their end of the deal. Again, this is presented in this way to advance an agenda or ideology. The caps are in place to control costs and the costs of the policy is reflected by that control. The agenda may be to get coverage they didn't pay for in the first place or to implement a socialist or political agenda like government healt
Tenth amendment. If a state wanted to pass its own law to supersede the federal one, then they have the right to go ahead. The entire program is optional, so it is not forcing anyone to do anything. So there is no violation of the Tenth Amendment whatsoever.
You need to revisit your constitution. The state cannot pass a law that supersedes the federal law as the federal laws are constitutionally the supreme law of the land. The best they can do is question the constitutional authority to implement the law and claim it cannot apply to them. This was the argument with the Medical Marijuana in California that lost. This is also why the feds are able to arrest, trial, and convict people obeying the state laws.
Unfortunately, the federal laws against Marijuana and it's jurisdiction hangs on a premise that violates the constitution/ isn't implicitly allowed by it also. The ban on prosecutions is not a law saying the feds won't prosecute them, it's an executive order saying federal resources will not be used and that didn't even happen until Obama got in office.
Socialism definition: "Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources." I dont see how this has anything to do with heath care reform.
First of all, quit calling it health care reform, it isn't. It's health insurance reform and this bill does nothing to control the costs of health care, it only mandates insurance coverage and controls what those agencies can do. It also regulates access to coverage and sets up a mechanism for the government to provide that coverage. Nothing in this bill reforms health care except the one provision that basically says do what works which is what is generally done in the real world anyways. The only difference is now there is a large database that can be accessed to determine the most effective things that work.
Anyways, what if has to do with health care is simply that it is the topic in which the question was asked about if something was socialism. Your also wrong on your socialism definition. You are only looking at part of the picture to the definition.
As it is likely that you pulled your definition from Wikipedia seeing how it's almost word for word pulled from the site, I will direct you to more details on the same page. If you pay attention, you will see that police, fire, an even this insurance takeover is socialist and fall under either a Socialist Planned Economy or State-Directed Economy or both.
I can tell you have problems kissing your mom with that mouth. But take a look here for a response.
The "your" "you're" problem isn't anything close to mangling the entire abbreviation of a country. And besides, I didn't think the AC which deserved any effort on spell check or anything. Nice try but no cigar.
Hmm.... How does state united as a raw Spanish translation United mexico states as it's proper translation or turn into to US or Mexico? Here is a hint, abbreviations keep the words and letters in the same order. So it would either be SU of Mexico or SMU in abbreviation.
Actually, the police force, fire services and for the most part initially started in the private sector. It was only transferred to the public sector after it proved to be ineffective or biased to some degree. There still are private police, fire, and justice systems in place to this day, even inside the US.
But to address your question more specifically even though I am not the person you are responding to, yes they are examples of socialism. However they are excepted examples of socialism because the inherit nature makes it something that everyone wants at some point in time and for the most part, they are delivered by the right part of government in which you have the most control over.
However, there is a clear distinction between these services and any other services the government offers like this new health care rubbish. This is especially the case when the government was designed to be a restricted government that ensures freedom to the people. If you look at the police and fire departments, even most of the justice system, it is completely controlled by the local governments and not the federal government.
So to recap, it doesn't really matter who thinks it's a good idea or not, what matters is which part of government is taking and providing. In the health care BS just passed, it's socialism at it's worse because the federal government has no constitutional authority to do what it just did. State's on the other hand may have the authority depending on their state constitutions and local governments may have the authority depending largely on the same. There is a reason why the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." And the biggest objections to the bill of rights being added to the constitution was that there wouldn't be a need to ban the federal government from doing things not expressly granted or provided for in the constitution. They said the bill of rights was a waste of time worrying about things that couldn't happen. So most socialist programs are rightly in place at the state and local levels in which they properly belong.
How about they aren't saying much of anything because as of right now, it's all talk. Nothing except the negotiations has been done concerning the ACTA. What we do know about it comes from questionable sources so there really isn't much to officially say unless you don't mind looking like some conspiracy kook when Obama sees how wrong sneaking this in would be and presents it to congress for ratification.
And when I say questionable sources, I don't mean the people reporting on it is questionable, I mean the way it was obtained and made available is questionable. Seriously, would you stake your career on a leaked document that can't be verify as completely factual?
Obama may be evil incarnated, he may be just another disillusioned idiot, he may be a lot of things, but there is plenty of reasons to remain somewhat silent without any of that coming into play.
US of Mexico? I doubt you know anything about what your talking about when you make simple mistakes like that.
BTW, illegals means not legal to a set of laws. Your an idiot if you think these terms apply to laws outside the ruling legal system or laws that came well after the land acquisition happened.
So I guess the best response would be BZZZT, try again and use your brain this time.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know who these conservatives are that do not like Jefferson, I have never met any of them. I also do not know why they would be pissed about the term "separation between church and state" unless it is because it is being used to people rights they had until recently. Some of these rights were to prey in school, some schools were outright banning religious material altogether due to the separation between church and state.
But hey, that's not Jefferson's fault, it's the idiots who can't grasp a concept. An idiot like this was the guy who sued because his kid had to learn the pledge of allegiance in school citing "separation of church and state".
I looks to me like that comment about not liking Jefferson and why is something the author and not the person being interviewed had said. I agree that people are allowed to have opinions, but when those opinions make claims about others, especially in such a broad stroke like "conservatives", then it should at least be accurate. I don't think the comment is anything more then an individuals opinion.
As for who would be charge or not is really up to the localities and how the information is presented to them. If it was presented that the 24 year old (man or woman) took advantage of the 15-17 year old (man or woman), then the older of the two most likely would be facing charges of some sort. However, if it's like you said, then there is somewhat of problem with intent.
What I mean by intent is, you can run into someone who is in a place and doing activities that would allow you to believe that everyone there is of legal age. Lets say this party was hosted primarily for adults and someone brought their brother who was under age, After seeing him at the adult party consuming adult beverages, it's entirely reasonable to assume he is at least 18 or more likely 21 (age for drinking in most states in the US). So if the 24 year old slept with an under aged person because she failed to ID that person who was in a place where the participants should have been old enough to begin with, then they are not likely going to get in trouble. However, if the 24 year old knew the kid was only 15, then there is a problem no matter how drunk she got or what kind of advances he made. And no, it wouldn't really matter if the roles were reversed. There is also a problem if the 24 year old went to a high school party and had a reasonable idea that most the attendees were under age.
You see, the premise of this discussion is that humans are able to control their sexual desires with self control. Being under the influence of alcohol does not reduce the expectation of that one bit at all. If it did, then a drunk who rapes a girl or drives their car into a family of 5 killing most of them would get off without charges.
That seems somewhat reasonable. However, the 19 and 15 year old would be within the 4 year grey area I was mentioning (which is at age 16 in my state). How would the law feel about someone who is 25 or 30 or 55 having sex with a 15 year old they hooked up with at a party (lets say a birthday party for your grandfather and the 30 or 50 year old attended as a guest and met the 15 year old who was a distant relative of your grandfather but a guest also)? Or does it even denote an distinction between older age within a relevant group of people and grossly exaggerated age differences?
I ask because I can see where someone would be exposed to a younger group. This can happen sometimes without fault of the older person. I know someone who was home schooled for the first six grades of their school life and for some reason was placed 3 grades behind where the state tested him when he went into public schools. He should have been placed into seventh or eighth grade but instead was put into 5th and had to remain in a class that was 3-4 years younger then him. And if he asked someone out that was from a lower grade who might have had access to the same classes in high school, there could have easily been a 4 to 5 year difference in age. But I think there is a real difference between kids in the same school just a grade or so apart and lets say junior or senior in college cruising the local high school for naive kids they can get to put out. I also see a big difference between the same and a 28 or 40 year old man cruising the high schools for inexperienced partners for whatever reason.
Whether society sees the differences is another question. I'm just curious if yours does.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is just as much an offense as committing the crime itself. Taking actions to commit a crime, say robbing a bank or gas station, even though you were apprehended before doing so is very much the same as the crime itself happening. This is nothing new and it has been in the news more then a few times where people were arrested, charged, and convicted for actions they wanted to do but failed in doing so. A common scenario of crimes is where someone attempts to find an assassin or thug to kill a spouse or rival or to physically harm them and the guy they hire turns out to be working with the cops. The person wanting to commit the crime is charged and convicted even though the crime never took place. In reality, if the intent to commit the crime is there and there is reasonable means to believe the capacity to commit the crime is there, then any action towards the crime is chargeable even if the crime didn't happen.
Something you might have seen on the news recently is the so called militia members in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan who plotted to kill some police and attack the government. They were arrested and charged (too soon for any convictions) based on their intent and ability to commit the crime even though it didn't happen.
You're sort of looking at it backwards. It's not a thought crime because his intention was to commit a crime. His thought mistake was not that it wasn't a crime or that he desired a 13 year old, or he imagined sexual acts with someone under age, it was that he thought a mature DC cop was a 13 year old girl and willfully set out to do something illegal based on that incorrect knowledge. But make no mistake, this wasn't about him just thinking of doing something, he masturbated to this person thinking that she was a 13 year old kid and invited her to have sex with him. The cop who he thought was a 13 year old girl provided an address and a time frame. The perp drove to the kids house then emailed her that he was there. They kept him waiting for some reason, maybe to see if he would commit a further crime, and arrested him as he drove off. This guy plead guilty to "travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) (2006)" In other words, he said he did act with intent (not just think) on his assumption that the person was 13 and it was illegal for him to have sex with her.
As with other crimes concerning crime that weren't actually committed (failed robberies or hit man schemes), the act of participating in the attempt of the crime is a crime just the same. This was no thought crime where he sat there and thought "she's hot, or I wonder what sex with her would be like, or imagined sex with her", he knowingly propositioned someone he believed to be under the age of consent for sex after showing himself doing a "solo sexual act" and then proceeded to act upon a response he interpreted as an acceptance. That turned out to be illegal and isn't a thought crime because he acted outside of the thought process in the commission of a crime.
The problem isn't a simple as your making it out to be. In real life, convicted sex offenders are restricted from most places that kids would be. This would include schools, daycare, public parks and sporting events featuring children teams, and so on. This is done to remove access to the children and allow society some safety to some degree (which is why sex offender lists are generally public) It's only a logical extension to restrict a person's access to the computer when the computer was the means of access to the children.
The problem here seems to be that the computer does way more then a school or a daycare or whatever so restricting total access is too much. It would be like not allowing a sex offender who still retains their voting rights to vote because their precinct is located within a school zone. It would be like not allowing this person to participate in government when some government agencies are only offering required forms or information through online sites and so on. So while it's logical to restrict this guys access to children by restricting his access to a computer, it's not logical to use that to restrict his access to employment or voting or government services or whatever else is connected to the use of a computer.
I'm betting that on re-sentencing, his computer use will still be restricted or monitored for a period of time but nothing like a total ban on access or use.
The ideal difference between a land line and a computer is that with a land line, the connection has to be formed somewhere else. In other words, you wouldn't call random numbers, ask if they were under 15, then try to talk them into meeting you for sex or describe yourself masturbating to them. If you did, it would be an avenue of approach to commit the crime or offense. In the same trend, people convicted of sex crimes are typically not allowed in or around schools, parks, daycare and other places that children would likely be because it's an avenue of approach. This is why the computer was singled out just like not going to a school or day care or public swimming pool is singled out with other convicted sex offenders too.
The problem that seems to be here now is that the computer is necessary for more then just surfing the internet in a lot of areas. Like the appeals court noted, it's necessary for finding work and in most cases actually performing the work. So closing that avenue of approach off entirely was deemed to stiff of a punishment for this person (who was employed in a field that needed the use of computers). It's not really something where a court is out of touch, it's more of a court taking an established principle to far.
Shooting someone for sleeping with someone else regardless of who or why is overkill. However, 17 or 15 or whatever is decided by the community you are in when it happens.
Most rational communities will encode this limit into law and as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Especially when the entire premise revolves around being able to control your sexual desires (which is why rape is illegal). Anyways, in most of these rational communities, the legal age of consent is set into law and usually take age of the offender into account too. Take my home state in the US for instance, The legal age of consent is 18 with the exception of people within 4 years of each others age, then it's 16 with people people between 13 and 15 being decided on a case by case situation to the degree of wrongfulness unless both participants are within that age group. Under 13 is a statutory rape regardless of any consent where the others could be contributing to the delinquency of a minor, rape, or something in between except within the range of consent.
The problem with kids and sex isn't some arbitrary number or age of consent selected by the community either. It's a number that is based around when the community has decided the child is capable of making a responsible decision in this regard. This isn't necessarily about harm to the child either. In almost all under age sex with older people situations outside the internet, the older person is in a position of authority over the child or they have negotiated some network of procedures or places of trust that the child is compelled to attend. A 30 or 45 year old janitor or bus driver who sleeps/has sex with 15 year old girls probably got that opportunity because they worked within a school that those 15 year old girls were supplied by state law. Same with a teacher or babysitter, parent/relative, or cop, who is in a unique position or power over a child to win their confidence. And lets face it, unless the person is already sexually confident or madly in lust with you, you pretty much have to win their confidence to get into their pants.
So the age of consent is more then just when society thinks the kids are able to make grown up decisions. The punishment reflects not only the tricking or taking advantage of children who might not be able to make the decision competently, but how the act was initiated and if anyone took advantage of situations created by laws in place or abuses of authority over the children.
Your previous post was modded as a troll which is why I brought it up. I couldn't tell you who did it. The comment wasn't about me believing it, but how silly it seems to mark you as one. I also understand that you have a difference of opinion then everyone else, I just seem to think that you weren't considering all of the possibilities.
As for manned missions, that's somewhat the goal of autonomous missions or has been with the US space agencies for a while. As far as Hydrogen being used as a fuel, the dangers of it that stop it from being used in a car is the danger to humans- not the machinery. The space shuttle used it right now and there are people pushing to turn the booster rockets into hydrogen fuel rockets so they can be reused. Anyways, as I stated before, the solar panels would create the hydrogen in transit while it was coasting to the destination so there wouldn't be too terribly much of it at one time. Something like that could allow an increase in speed as well as deceleration making a 6 month trip somewhat shorter. Also there is a benefit in space that isn't available on earth, we can simply position the containment devices on the side of the space craft opposite of the sun and use the lack of heat (no atmosphere so no ambient temperature) to aid in the cooling and stabilization of the hydrogen which would negate some of the instability problems preventing it's consumer use on earth.
I first learned about the Helium-3 in an article I was reading on the practical drawbacks causing cold fusion to be a pipe dream. I just equated the two together and never really thought about it much more outside of knowing that there is supposed to be loads of it on the moon.
My understanding of it which isn't to any great extent, is that there should be much more Helium-3 on the moon then there is accessible/usable plutonium on the earth and something with how the sun's rays pass over the moon would create a supply to replace any taken if enough time had passed so it's sort of renewable to boot. The connection to cold fusion is only because of my lack of knowledge with it. I do remember the lower radiation and all and that. Helium-3 isn't radioactive which makes it somewhat more desirable as a fuel if it was plentiful in supply.
I do not know why someone modded you a troll on your post. Well, unless someone thought Troll was synonymous with ignorant and tried to be ironic which is humorous to say the least.
Anyways, the water in your back yard is very expensive to get into space. In fact, it's so expensive that stopping on the moon to pick it on the way to mars or wherever up would ultimately be cheaper then taking it from earth. Imagine carrying a pale of water up a 300 meter incline to dump into a pool. Now imagine you have to fill this pool up which would require 2379 trips with a 5 gallon pale to fill a 24 foot pool. Now imagine doing the same with a 300 meter trip across level land. That's not quite the different in effort and energy that would be spent but should give you an idea.
As for mining, well, they say there is plenty of Helium-3 on the moon (or so they say) and just one cargo bay of the space shuttle full of it could supply all of the US's energy demands for at least one year. Of course that would require cold fusion to be more then a pipe dream but Helium-3 is currently rare on earth so a cleaner energy source could be one product other then water for future space exploration that could be mined.
But lets go back to the water for instance. Suppose a manned mission to mars was going to take 4 people to mars and back. Now they say you should drink 8 8-ounce glasses of water a day. Your food will provide about 20% of the total fluid intake so you need to add more water to remain healthy. But lets ignore that and the entire if your active you need more and so on and take a safe constant of 8-8ounce glasses of water per day. Now there is 128 ounces in a gallon and 8 8-ounce glasses is 64 ounces. Times that by the 4 people and you have 256 ounces or 2 gallons of water for each day. Of course this doesn't account for laundry or bathing or anything, just to drink. So it takes between 6-8 months to reach mars and the same to return. At a round 30 days to a month, that's 360-480 gallons of water one way or 720-960 gallons round trip. At 8.3 pounds to a gallon of water, you are looking at 5,976-7,968 pounds (3614kg) extra to lift off from earth. At $5 to $10K per pound to launch into space, we are looking at roughly 59 millon just to get the water up there.
Of course they wouldn't actually send that kind of water up as they could recycle most of it (if you don't mind drinking refined wastes). But solar panels could split the water into oxygen and hydrogen, compress them to a liquid state, and supply the fuel for the trip back or maybe even a detour. Getting to the water on the moon could be the key to doing what you would like with other planets/destinations.
I liked the XKCD reference. Today's is very fitting as I had to field a complaint over someone claiming all their programs and shortcuts were gone. Turns out they liked a co workers desktop wallpaper and instead of grabbing the image and setting it as theirs, they decided to log into the domain as the other user. But what can you do when the employees are relatives of the owner.
Anyways, I wasn't just talking about green house gases. I was speaking of the problems with heat from the middle of the earth in the form of volcanic activity, ocean currents that change bringing warmer or colder water to areas not typically accustomed to it and so on. There are a range of outside forces having an effect on the observations behind global warming that will not allow a simple Fourier equation to explain it all.
Why would I want to explain something that isn't completely reflective to the current discussion? In case you missed the point I made in my post, there are too many outside factors involve for your simplistic calculation to be accurate within the entire increase of Co2-CH4-H2O and other GHGs to coincide accurately with he increases in temperature. No one is denying that there is a green house effect, they are denying that man has significantly altered it. This is why the climate models are way more complex then simply taking the amount of radiation in and multiplying it with the amount of increased Green house gasses. Removing your calculation does nothing to the question, it's only accurate in controlled environments without positive or negative feed backs.
Scientist have also spent centuries looking for what causes gravity and the best we have is a couple of theories that can't be proven. We know more about how to use gravity, more about how to us items within gravity, and more about taking advantage of gravity then we do about it's causes or creation. If global warming was really as simply as a dumbed down equation, then there would be no debate or skeptics right now.
My rant about El Nino was little more then an example of a complication to your calculation. What you cannot tell us is how much of an effect el nino has on your calculations or if the effect has increased or decreased significantly over the same time span. In other words, the science of global warming is much more complex then that.
So your admiting that your calculations are accurate with the observed changes in temperature? You blame it on the oceans being a huge heat sink and want to question my claim that it's much to complex to use a simple equation like Fourier. Hmm.. I've had AGW discussions with you in the past, but never have you agreed with my premise while attempting to deny it. Is this some strange new debating tactic you are practicing?
Again, agreeing with me while disagreeing. Let me ask you a few questions, how do you know the -ve feed backs aren't sub-settling and creating positive feedback compared
There is a real scientific problem with your skeptics dismissal.
The properties of Co2 are not in question here and never were. The question is whether or not the change in the amounts of Co2 is large enough on scale to have the claimed effect outside of other observations because the raw physics equation doesn't side with observations. Co2 is a very small part of the atmosphere and the amount that is supposed to be a problem something like .0005 of the total atmosphere. And to add to that, there are plenty of other green house gases that display properties similar to Co2 in much larger quantities which are more effected by natural events then man made events. There are many outside factors that contribute to the problem like submarine volcanic activities, shifts in oceanic currents along with the decadal oscillation events responsible for El Mino and so on. That's why there is a complex climate model and not a climate math problem that any high school child could figure out.
I mean seriously, if it was as simply as Co2 has X heat retention value when exposed to Y amounts of heat then the entire proof would be X+1*y. And for every one in addition to X, simply measure the temp and see if it's accurate. Well, it's not that simple and to date, no attempts to make it that simple have been accurate.
What you are doing is essentially saying Wool is warm, I see ten sheep with wool, I am going to be warm and criticizing anyone who doubts you. Your league of followers may believe that you will eventually shear the sheep and make fabric from the wool that you will eventually make into some warm clothing and wear, but I don't have to believe you will, the guy you responded doesn't have top believe you will, actually, no one who can critically think should believe you will until we see you wearing the wool sweater and socks. SO if Co2 is actually the problem, more specifically, man made Co2, then show us the damn wool socks and sweater already. Don't sit there and cry because the properties of Co2 are such or that someone questions the claim. `All that does is show how little about the situation you actually do know. And when I say situation, I mean both global warming as well as the skeptics.
I'm sure that Novell is fully aware of the claims of Unix IP in Linux made by SCO and most likely know what those are too. However, the way they could claim ignorance is if I added Unix code tomorrow or if something wasn't noticed, disclosed or talked about before now or it simply wasn't in the packages they distributed. That's why I initially started with "Not necessarily true" instead of "you are wrong".
The point is that there has to be a knowing consent component in order for their distribution to be a granting of a license per the GPL. Otherwise, it would be them passing on the license they received.
And yes, I do know that SCO's claim of Unix IP in Linux was not only shoddy but lacking severely. I'm not questioning that at all. I'm just stating that something could still pop up and bite us because of Unix IP in Linux if it is ever there. Novell's participation in GPL'ed products doesn't automatically imply their consent so each and every time there is a claim, it needs to be looked at carefully.
Well, no. Not all programs on a SUSE disk ares GPLed and not all GPLed code is on SUSE disks.
Further more, there is absolutely nothing indicating that Novel has inspected any code in the kernel or any other part of the SUSE disk pretending to be GPLed but was actually Unix code improperly included. The fact that they distributed something is not enough to take their copyrights away. The GPL does not, let me repeat that, _the_GPL_does_not_steal or trick someone out of their copyrights.
Now, if Novel was fully away that the code was there and it was their by proxy of being Unix code and then consented to distributing it under the GPL, then yes, the GPL would propagate. But the point is that Novel would have to be aware that A: it was their code and not code belonging to the person who included it and licensed it under the GPL, and B: that their distribution was actually distributing their code under the GPL and not relaying code with the rights given to them.
In short, unless Novell knows the code it there and consents to it being under the GPL, then it's not under the GPL legally and their unknowing distribution of it doesn't place it there. The only way it can be placed under the GPL is if Novell adds it or consciously makes it so. The GPL does not trick anyone out of their property.
I was wondering about this too. A friend kept getting copyright notices from his ISP saying they were going to cancel his service. He thought maybe his computer was infected with something. Turned out he was running TOR and someone terminating at his connection was running a bit torrent client making it appear as if he was.
So I wonder, how many of these people were doing something similar thinking they were helping the oppressed with free speech or government agents protect the country only to be bitten by someone attempting to hide their "illegal" activities and if running TOR would be a valid excuse?
Not necessarily true.
Simply conveying a GPLed product doesn't imply any rights in addition to what was already within the product were conveyed. So if whoever put the code in the product didn't have the legal ability to do so, then SCO or Novell distributing anything wouldn't entrap them into losing their copyright to it or granting others rights to that copyright.
Let me explain this a little differently. Suppose you spent the last 5 years developing a video game that you intended to sell at a reasonable price. Now suppose I packaged a GPLed OS and combined your video game directly into the code so it was an integral part of the OS's display. Now also suppose I placed a GPL notice on all your code as well as the OS package then asked you to host the files at your website. That act alone does not remove any of your rights to the copyright of your code nor does it give anyone else copyright rights to it. In short, the GPL wouldn't apply to items I didn't not have the right to apply it to regardless of you distributing it unknowingly or not.
Think about this, could I take a GPLed program or piece of code from it and place that into a BSD or MIT licensed work? Of course not. But suppose I did so and didn't tell anyone, then the original author decides to distribute it as a compilation of programs or something or part of it without knowing his code is in there, he has granted nothing knowingly so it still wouldn't be BSD or MIT licenses code. All he would have done is passed on the permissions he received- not added any without his knowledge.
This is because I have no right to assign your copyright and the GPL doesn't steal copyright. It only passed rights to copyright on to others assuming they pass those same rights given to them with it. So if I violated your copyright by placing it inside of something, if or when you distribute that, you are only distributing the copyright I gave you permission to redistribute, not automatically losing your rights to your copyrighted work.
I was with you all the way until the end. Unfortunately, the government has jurisdiction over what enters and leaves the country as a right of sovereignty including communications, mail and IP packets. One of the very first laws over this was passed back in the late 1700's when the founders were very much alive and still operating in the government they formed. The law allowed the searching vessels at borders and ports inland when the vessels came from outside of the country. This law was passed by the very first congress of the United States in which many of the founding fathers participated in.
This has been one of the basis and principles behind many of the court cases we have seen in the last century in which the courts backed the notion that the search and free speech clauses in the constitution didn't apply.
Now I'm not wanting to get into a discussion of if that is right or wrong, but it's the way it is viewed and has been viewed since the beginning of the country when George Washington sign the law allowing warrant-less searches of vessels at ports entering or leaving the country.
I agree with your federalism comment. However, I can understand why people are so confused with the issue when the FDR initiated programs that directly benefited the people instead of the state and the federal government has used those expanded powers (namely the interstate commerce clause) to grab jurisdiction on things like minimum wage and drug laws.
The biggest pushers of government health care isn't really the people who need access to health care. It's people pushing an ideology onto others for various reasons.
Think about this, if you're poor, you generally are covered by a government program already with the exception of some single people with no children. If your wealthy, then you already have coverage because you don't want an illness to challenge your wealth. So that leaves us with is approximately 46 million Americans out of 307 million (population estimate by the census bureau last year) who do not have health coverage. If this site is to be believed, 17 million of those uninsured make $50k or more a year and could afford insurance if they wanted it or spent their money a little more wisely. That leaves us with about 29 million people out of 307 million or roughly 10% of the population that doesn't have health care insurance or is covered be an existing government program. We can dwindle that number down a little more if we look at the claim that 25% of the 29 million uninsured qualify for an existing government program but aren't enrolled for whatever reason. This would drop the number down to 21 million or so (roughly 7% of the population) but that's sort of irrelevant because they are not covered as of now.
Now if we take this data and look at how many people support the government health care and who are apposed to it, less then half of the country support it and more then half appose it. But half of 307 million is about 125 million more people then those with no coverage. It isn't really welfare babies hoping to win the dole who are in support of this (of course there probably are some, but it's far more complex then this). What it is about is where people in general aren't satisfied with the insurance services they are getting right now and have been scared to death by claims that things will happen which might not be true in their case.
Life time caps on services or payouts is one of them. When people take out a policy, even if it's the employer provided policy, the life time cap is known in advance but it's a "major travesty" or "unjust act" when someone gets ill who is under-insured and reaches that cap. It gets presented as if the caps are arbitrary and made to apply at the whim of the insurance provider for the sole purpose of not holding up their end of the deal. Again, this is presented in this way to advance an agenda or ideology. The caps are in place to control costs and the costs of the policy is reflected by that control. The agenda may be to get coverage they didn't pay for in the first place or to implement a socialist or political agenda like government healt
You need to revisit your constitution. The state cannot pass a law that supersedes the federal law as the federal laws are constitutionally the supreme law of the land. The best they can do is question the constitutional authority to implement the law and claim it cannot apply to them. This was the argument with the Medical Marijuana in California that lost. This is also why the feds are able to arrest, trial, and convict people obeying the state laws.
Unfortunately, the federal laws against Marijuana and it's jurisdiction hangs on a premise that violates the constitution/ isn't implicitly allowed by it also. The ban on prosecutions is not a law saying the feds won't prosecute them, it's an executive order saying federal resources will not be used and that didn't even happen until Obama got in office.
First of all, quit calling it health care reform, it isn't. It's health insurance reform and this bill does nothing to control the costs of health care, it only mandates insurance coverage and controls what those agencies can do. It also regulates access to coverage and sets up a mechanism for the government to provide that coverage. Nothing in this bill reforms health care except the one provision that basically says do what works which is what is generally done in the real world anyways. The only difference is now there is a large database that can be accessed to determine the most effective things that work.
Anyways, what if has to do with health care is simply that it is the topic in which the question was asked about if something was socialism. Your also wrong on your socialism definition. You are only looking at part of the picture to the definition.
As it is likely that you pulled your definition from Wikipedia seeing how it's almost word for word pulled from the site, I will direct you to more details on the same page. If you pay attention, you will see that police, fire, an even this insurance takeover is socialist and fall under either a Socialist Planned Economy or State-Directed Economy or both.
I can tell you have problems kissing your mom with that mouth. But take a look here for a response.
The "your" "you're" problem isn't anything close to mangling the entire abbreviation of a country. And besides, I didn't think the AC which deserved any effort on spell check or anything. Nice try but no cigar.
Hmm.... How does state united as a raw Spanish translation United mexico states as it's proper translation or turn into to US or Mexico? Here is a hint, abbreviations keep the words and letters in the same order. So it would either be SU of Mexico or SMU in abbreviation.
Perhaps you should look it up too.
Actually, the police force, fire services and for the most part initially started in the private sector. It was only transferred to the public sector after it proved to be ineffective or biased to some degree. There still are private police, fire, and justice systems in place to this day, even inside the US.
But to address your question more specifically even though I am not the person you are responding to, yes they are examples of socialism. However they are excepted examples of socialism because the inherit nature makes it something that everyone wants at some point in time and for the most part, they are delivered by the right part of government in which you have the most control over.
However, there is a clear distinction between these services and any other services the government offers like this new health care rubbish. This is especially the case when the government was designed to be a restricted government that ensures freedom to the people. If you look at the police and fire departments, even most of the justice system, it is completely controlled by the local governments and not the federal government.
So to recap, it doesn't really matter who thinks it's a good idea or not, what matters is which part of government is taking and providing. In the health care BS just passed, it's socialism at it's worse because the federal government has no constitutional authority to do what it just did. State's on the other hand may have the authority depending on their state constitutions and local governments may have the authority depending largely on the same. There is a reason why the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." And the biggest objections to the bill of rights being added to the constitution was that there wouldn't be a need to ban the federal government from doing things not expressly granted or provided for in the constitution. They said the bill of rights was a waste of time worrying about things that couldn't happen. So most socialist programs are rightly in place at the state and local levels in which they properly belong.
How about they aren't saying much of anything because as of right now, it's all talk. Nothing except the negotiations has been done concerning the ACTA. What we do know about it comes from questionable sources so there really isn't much to officially say unless you don't mind looking like some conspiracy kook when Obama sees how wrong sneaking this in would be and presents it to congress for ratification.
And when I say questionable sources, I don't mean the people reporting on it is questionable, I mean the way it was obtained and made available is questionable. Seriously, would you stake your career on a leaked document that can't be verify as completely factual?
Obama may be evil incarnated, he may be just another disillusioned idiot, he may be a lot of things, but there is plenty of reasons to remain somewhat silent without any of that coming into play.
US of Mexico? I doubt you know anything about what your talking about when you make simple mistakes like that.
BTW, illegals means not legal to a set of laws. Your an idiot if you think these terms apply to laws outside the ruling legal system or laws that came well after the land acquisition happened.
So I guess the best response would be BZZZT, try again and use your brain this time.